skip to main content
research-article

Tight Bounds on Online Checkpointing Algorithms

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The problem of online checkpointing is a classical problem with numerous applications that has been studied in various forms for almost 50 years. In the simplest version of this problem, a user has to maintain k memorized checkpoints during a long computation, where the only allowed operation is to move one of the checkpoints from its old time to the current time, and his goal is to keep the checkpoints as evenly spread out as possible at all times.

Bringmann, Doerr, Neumann, and Sliacan studied this problem as a special case of an online/offline optimization problem in which the deviation from uniformity is measured by the natural discrepancy metric of the worst case ratio between real and ideal segment lengths. They showed this discrepancy is smaller than 1.59-o(1) for all k and smaller than ln 4-o(1)≈ 1.39 for the sparse subset of k’s, which are powers of 2. In addition, they obtained upper bounds on the achievable discrepancy for some small values of k.

In this article, we solve the main problems left open in the above-mentioned paper by proving that ln 4 is a tight upper and lower bound on the asymptotic discrepancy for all large k and by providing tight upper and lower bounds (in the form of provably optimal checkpointing algorithms, some of which are in fact better than those of Bringmann et al.) for all the small values of k ≤ 10.

In the last part of the article, we describe some new applications of this online checkpointing problem.

References

  1. Lauri Ahlroth, Olli Pottonen, and André Schumacher. 2013. Approximately uniform online checkpointing with bounded memory. Algorithmica 67, 2 (2013), 234--246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. S. Andersen, J. Dahl, and L. Vandenberghe. 2016. CVXOPT: A Python package for convex optimization. version 1.1.9. Retrieved from http://cvxopt.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Marshall W. Bern, Daniel H. Greene, Arvind Raghunathan, and Madhu Sudan. 1994. On-line algorithms for locating checkpoints. Algorithmica 11, 1 (1994), 33--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Richard P. Brent. 1980. An improved Monte-Carlo factorization algorithm. BIT Numer. Math. 20, 2 (1980), 176--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Karl Bringmann, Benjamin Doerr, Adrian Neumann, and Jakub Sliacan. 2013. Online checkpointing with improved worst-case guarantees. In Proceedings of the 40th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’13). 255--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. K. Mani Chandy and Chittoor V. Ramamoorthy. 1972. Rollback and recovery strategies for computer programs. IEEE Trans. Comput. 21, 6 (1972), 546--556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Robert W. Floyd. 1997. Cycle Finding Algorithm. Exercise 3.1–6 in The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2: Seminumerical Algorithms, by Donald Knuth. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Free Software Foundation. 2012. GNU Linear Programming Kit. Version 4.61. Retrieved from http://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Erol Gelenbe. 1979. On the optimum checkpoint interval. J. ACM 26, 2 (1979), 259--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sam Toueg and Özalp Babaoglu. 1984. On the optimum checkpoint selection problem. SIAM J. Comput. 13, 3 (1984), 630--649.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Tight Bounds on Online Checkpointing Algorithms

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Algorithms
      ACM Transactions on Algorithms  Volume 16, Issue 3
      July 2020
      368 pages
      ISSN:1549-6325
      EISSN:1549-6333
      DOI:10.1145/3403658
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 June 2020
      • Online AM: 7 May 2020
      • Accepted: 1 January 2020
      • Revised: 1 August 2019
      • Received: 1 November 2018
      Published in talg Volume 16, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format